Case law

Rosen v. Savant Instruments, Inc.

264 F. Supp. 232 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 23, 1967

The defendant has never been qualified to do business in the State of Rhode Island, was not so qualified and was not doing business in the State of Rhode Island when this action was commenced. … Nor does it appear clearly from the moving papers whether the sale of this equipment was made by Servonuclear Corporation or by the defendant.

Small v. Bud-K Worldwide, Inc.

895 F. Supp. 2d 438 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 28, 2012

The County defendants cross-moved for summary judgment alleging that: (1) plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; (2) the County defendants are entitled to qualified immunity; (3) Section 265.01 … Since this Court has already determined that the statute is not vague, the Court need not address whether Rice and Kalaydijian are protected by absolute immunity.

Patel v. Incorporated Village of Old Brookville

District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 22, 2023

Qualified Immunity Finally, the Village Defendants and the County Defendants argue that Marino and Reavy are entitled to qualified immunity. Village Defs.’ … The Court similarly concludes that it cannot determine, as a matter of law, that Reavy is entitled to qualified immunity.

United States v. Zuckerman

88 F. Supp. 2d 9 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 21, 2000

While Zuckerman attempted to demonstrate that Nass considered the case against Zuckerman to have such prosecution potential as early as December 1996, Nass’ testimony clearly establishes that his initial findings regarding … Clearly this letter fits within that definition.

Wallace v. State

40 F. Supp. 3d 278 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 28, 2014

Lindsay, 507 F.2d 1065, 1068 (2d Cir.1974) (“Since there is clearly no constitutional right of access to a certain quality of housing, plaintiffs must establish that the city’s action impinges on a suspect class in order … to qualify for the stricter compelling state interest standard.”)

Sugrue v. Derwinski

808 F. Supp. 946 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 18, 1992

Veterans’ Admin., 762 F.Supp. 539 (S.D.N.Y.1991) is misplaced and is clearly distinguishable. … The individual defendants would also appear to have qualified immunity under Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982).

Egan Ex Rel. Egan v. United States

732 F. Supp. 1248 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 9, 1990

Erwin, 484 U.S. 292 , 108 S.Ct. 580 , 98 L.Ed.2d 619 (1988), have eroded this immunity. … Until that decision the cases generally held them immune if they had acted within the scope of their employment. Id.

De Blasio v. United States

617 F. Supp. 1004 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 20, 1985

The contract, which establishes Shields and Dean as concessioner, provides that Shields and Dean is responsible for the maintenance and operation of the Sports Center. … Thus, if Shields and Dean runs the Sports Center as an independent contractor, the FTCA does not apply and the United States is immune from suit.

Liberty Mutual Insurance v. United States

490 F. Supp. 328 · District Court, E.D. New York · May 23, 1980

Vasquez by Liberty Mutual clearly represent “basic economic loss” and “first-party benefits” as *332 those terms are defined in § 671(1) and (2). And second, Ms. … It is clear that the United States could not be made subject to the mandatory arbitration procedure specified in § 674, because it would conflict with the administrative arrangement established in the Federal Tort Claims

Bey v. Antoine

District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 23, 2021

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity is available to officials” in a Section 1983 action “so long as their actions do not violate ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional … Although “qualified immunity should be resolved ‘at the earliest possible stage in litigation’” id. (quoting Pearson v.

Dorsett v. County of Nassau

866 F. Supp. 2d 187 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 6, 2012

and records, such that the First Amendment balancing test there articulated should be applied before such qualifying documents and records can be sealed.” … Waksberg, 112, F.3d 1225, 1227 (D.C.Cir.1997) (“Basically it is this: separation of powers principles require the government’s immunity to give way because judicial power to enforce court orders against the United States

Eckhaus v. City of New York

District Court, E.D. New York · May 1, 2023

Officers also enjoy a defense to false arrest claims under the doctrine of qualified immunity. Qualified immunity shields an officer who had arguable probable cause to make an arrest. … Eckhaus or because it is not clearly established that an officer can seize an individual for Fourth Amendment purposes merely by filling out an arrest report. Mr.

Peavey v. Polytechnic Institute of New York

775 F. Supp. 75 · District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 17, 1991

Cullen & Dykman, a private law firm, and Leonard Flamm, a private attorney, are clearly not state entities. See Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 318 , 102 S.Ct. 445, 449 , 70 L.Ed.2d 509 (1981). … In order to establish state involvement in a civil rights conspiracy, a plaintiff is required to allege with particularity that the public entity conspired with the private defendants to deprive plaintiff of his rights.

DPWN Holdings (USA), Inc. v. United Air Lines, Inc.

871 F. Supp. 2d 143 · District Court, E.D. New York · May 18, 2012

Even a class member that was actively monitoring the docket to ensure its interests were being pursued might be unaware of the settlement until the filing of an order, stipulation, pleading or other document clearly indicating … Their limited immunity does not extend to that alleged conduct.

White v. Town of Huntington

District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 4, 2021

Government officials who raise a qualified immunity defense are “entitled to summary judgment when they can establish either ‘(1) a constitutional right was [not] violated or (2) the right was not clearly established … Boccard and Riekert therefore are not entitled to qualified immunity by a showing that the right at issue is not clearly established.

Minfee v. City of New York

District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 12, 2021

Qualified Immunity Detective Soberal is not entitled to dismissal of the false-arrest claim based on qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects government officials from damages if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Mullenix v.

Cotterell v. Gilmore

64 F. Supp. 3d 406 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 8, 2014

However, “[t]he Eleventh Amendment bars suits in federal court by citizens against a state and its agencies, absent a waiver of immunity or Congressional legislation specifically overriding immunity.” Martinez v. … This framework places the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination on the plaintiff, who must demonstrate ' that: (1) he is a member of a protected class; (2) he was qualified for the position in

Watson v. United States

179 F. Supp. 3d 251 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 25, 2016

Additionally, this clearly incorrect file states that Hopeton Livingston Watson’s ex-wife was a United States citizen. See id. … Permitting the government to hide behind the pre-colonial, British based, regal shield of sovereign immunity to immunize itself from the consequences of its violation of a citizen’s constitutional rights would be antithetical

Ogunkoya v. Drake

District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 7, 2020

Qualified Immunity The State Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s substantive due process claim … Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity “when they perform discretionary functions if either (1) their conduct ‘did not violate clearly established rights of which a

Piotrowski v. the Rocky Point Union Free School District

District Court, E.D. New York · May 28, 2020

In the alternative, the County Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because they are government actors and their conduct did not violate a clearly established right. … Mayer is also not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage.